In the matter of an application for admission as a legal practitioner by Emily Florence Dow & Ors

[2015] QCA 133

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

In the matter of an application for admission as a legal practitioner by Emily Florence Dow & Ors [2015] QCA 133

PARTIES:

EMILY FLORENCE DOW
BIANKA J BOSNJAK
ANGELA LEONNE HUME
KYLIE MAREE LAGERROTH
MONA NILOFAR NEUHAUS
NAOMI MAREE SCHULTE
(applicants)
v
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS ADMISSIONS BOARD
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 397 of 2015
SC No 418 of 2015
SC No 407 of 2015
SC No 439 of 2015
SC No 434 of 2015
SC No 438 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Admission

DELIVERED ON:

17 July 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers

JUDGES:

Fraser and Morrison JJA and Flanagan J
Judgment of the Court

ORDERS:

1.   In accordance with Rule 27 of the Supreme Court (Admission Rules) 2004 (‘the Rules’) and in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction, that the applicant for admission be relieved from compliance with the current requirements of s 30(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (‘the Act’) and Rule 7 on the basis that:

(a)    The applicant has undertaken a Practical Legal Training (‘PLT’) program completed in accordance with the revised PLT Competency Standards (February 2015); the revised PLT Competency Standards having been adopted by the Law Admissions Consultative Committee (‘LACC’) and the Legal Practitioners Admissions Board (‘the Board’) as ‘approved practical legal training requirements’ under Appendix B to the LACC Report; and

(b) The PLT program completed by the applicant constitutes satisfactory completion of ‘approved practical legal training requirements’ for the purposes of s 30(1)(c) of the Act and Rule 7 prior to the Rules being amended to reflect the revised PLT Competency Standards.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – QUALIFICATIONS AND ADMISSION – DISPENSING WITH REQUIREMENTS – where amendments have been made to the Practical Legal Training Requirements – where these amendments have been approved by the Chief Justice and the Admissions Board – where these amendments have not been enacted in the Supreme Court (Admission) Rules 2004 (Qld) – where the applicants completed the amended Practical Legal Training Requirements – whether the Court ought relieve the applicants from compliance with s 30(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) and Rule 7 of the Supreme Court (Admission) Rules 2004 (Qld)

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 29, s 30(1)(c), s 34
Supreme Court (Admission) Rules 2004 (Qld), r 7, r 10, r 27

COUNSEL:

No appearance for the applicants, the applicants’ submissions were heard on the papers
No appearance for the respondent, the respondent’s submissions were heard on the papers

SOLICITORS:

The applicants appeared on their own behalves
Legal Practitioners Admissions Board for the respondent

1. THE COURT: In this application for admission to the legal profession in Queensland, the Legal Practitioners Admission Board (“the Board”) has applied for an order relieving the applicant for admission from compliance with the current requirements of s 30(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) (“the Act”) and Rule 7 of the Supreme Court (Admission) Rules 2004 (Qld) (“the Rules”).

2. This is one of many similar applications.  In each case there is what may fairly be described as a “technical” non-compliance with the “approved Practical Legal Training Requirements”.  The applicants completed the approved Practical Legal Training Requirements, save that the content of their Practical Legal Training course was amended to accord with revisions approved by the Chief Justice and the Admissions Board on or about 23 March 2015 which have not yet been enacted in the Rules.

3. The applicants could reasonably have anticipated that the revisions would be enacted before they applied for admission.  The circumstance that the applicants completed a course with those approved revisions could not bear upon their suitability for admission.  There have now been many instances in which the Court has relieved applicants for admission from compliance with this aspect of the Rules.

4. The interlocutory order sought by the Board is appropriate in these cases because they do not involve any question of suitability for admission. These applicants have applied to be admitted at an admissions sitting before the Northern Judge in Townsville or the Central Judge in Rockhampton. Rule 10 of the Rules permits applications for admission to be made at any sittings fixed as an admission sittings of the Supreme Court at Rockhampton, Townsville or Cairns, but only if the applicant for admission has complied with the Act and the Rules. Those provisions are picked up in the definition of “Supreme Court” in s 29 of the Act. The consequence is that, unless the applicants are relieved from compliance with the relevant eligibility requirement, the provision in s 34 of the Act that a person may apply to the Supreme Court to be admitted to the legal profession will require the applicants to apply for admission to the Court of Appeal in Brisbane.

5. That inconvenient and inappropriate consequence should be avoided by the Court, exercising power given by Rule 27 of the Rules and the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (which is preserved by s 13 of the Act) to relieve each applicant from compliance with the relevant requirement. We note that the Court made a similar interlocutory order on 15 June 2015 in In the Matter of an Application by Roxanne May Hart for Admission to the legal profession.

6. For those reasons, the Court makes the following order in this application:

   In accordance with Rule 27 of the Supreme Court (Admission Rules) 2004 (‘the Rules’) and in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction, that the applicant for admission be relieved from compliance with the current requirements of s 30(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (‘the Act’) and Rule 7 on the basis that:

   (a)The applicant has undertaken a Practical Legal Training (‘PLT’) program completed in accordance with the revised PLT Competency Standards (February 2015); the revised PLT Competency Standards having been adopted by the Law Admissions Consultative Committee (‘LACC’) and the Legal Practitioners Admissions Board (‘the Board’) as ‘approved practical legal training requirements’ under Appendix B to the LACC Report; and

   (b)The PLT program completed by the applicant constitutes satisfactory completion of ‘approved practical legal training requirements’ for the purposes of s 30(1)(c) of the Act and Rule 7 prior to the Rules being amended to reflect the revised PLT Competency Standards.

7. For the same reasons, orders in the same form will be made in each of the similar applications determined today.